Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <676@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 17:05:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.676
Posted: Fri Sep 20 17:05:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 07:50:03 EDT
References: <1622@pyuxd.UUCP> <1472@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> <648@mmintl.UUCP> <1715@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 61

In article <1715@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> Rich argues that the desire to conform is purely the result of
>> indoctrination.  This does not seem to me to be correct; I think there
>> is an intrinsic desire to conform.  This is a psychological issue, not
>> a philosophic one. [ADAMS]
>
>Intrinsic?  Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination?

Yes, intrinsic.  There are societal pressures and indoctinations, but I
think there is also an intrinsic desire.  Man evolved as a social animal,
and conformity has positive survival value (for your genes, which are shared
with family and tribe) in that context.  This doesn't prove anything, but
I think it is indicative.

>> In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence
>> and/or freedom than to conformity.  I would assign a zero or negative
>> value to conformity, however.
>
>Hear, hear!

This is an obvious typo.  That should read, I would not assign a zero or
negative value to conformity.

>> There are certain instances where conformity has strong value.  Which side
>> of the road one drives on, for example.  In other cases, the value is
>> similar, but much less; one knows what to expect and can deal with it
>> more easily.  This potentially helps both the person conforming and the
>> other person, since one may be harmed (ranging from annoyance on up) by
>> inappropriate behavior by those around us.  Let me emphasize that I believe
>> this is generally of truly minor import, and of considerably less importance
>> than, for example, personal whim.  But there are cases covering the whole
>> spectrum.
>
>I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like
>safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of
>self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming.

I don't think the distinction is all that clear cut.  I do think, in
practice, in most cases where conformity is an issue, even a mild desire
for self-expression is of greater importance.  I also think self-expression
should be encouraged.  But as I said, there are cases covering the whole
spectrum.

For an example of an intermediate case, consider public nudity.  This is
against the law, but lets leave that aside for the moment.  Appearing nude
in public is likely to seriously upset a significant number of people.
In my mind, that overrides any casual desire I might have to do it (not
a frequent occurance, by the way).  It would not override, say, a desire
to make some sort of political point I thought was important.  (Not that
I can think of any such points -- this is all hypothetical.)


There are two questions here, which are frequently confused.  One is,
what actions are moral or immoral in a given situation?  The other is,
what actions should be legal or illegal in a given situation?  I would
agree that non-conformity should not be illegal except where serious
safety issues are involved.  (Thus I think public nudity should be
legal.)  That does not mean that conformity is of no value.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com